Of course they tell massive lies. Corporations are restricted on what they can donate to candidates. They however can take out issue advocacy ads and donate to issue advocacy groups. But hear it right out of their own mouths.

Funny thing is that they don’t want to take money out of politics, they just want to silence those they choose to steal from. Yes that’s a harsh statement but it’s the only thing that makes sense. They make the wild claim that corporations own the government and then in the next breath they call for more regulations. I guess you just can’t argue with circular logic. Of course the obvious cure is not to punish business. They want to survive. The cure is to take away the power of the federal government and to pass laws that criminalize politicians who do pass laws that favor one group or business over another.

But to start out let’s look at what Citizens United really says.

“The law before us is an outright ban, backed by criminal sanctions. Section 441b makes it a felony for all corporations—including nonprofit advocacy corporations—either to expressly advocate the election or defeat of candidates or to broadcast electioneering communications within 30 days of a primary election and 60 days of a general election. . . . These prohibitions are classic examples of censorship. Section 441b is a ban on corporate speech notwithstanding the fact that a PAC created by a corporation can still speak. . . . Section 441b’s prohibition on corporate independent expenditures is thus a ban on speech. As a “restriction on the amount of money a person or group can spend on political communication during a campaign,” that statute “necessarily reduces the quantity of expression by restricting the number of issues discussed, the depth of their exploration, and the size of the audience reached.” . . . . If §441b applied to individuals, no one would believe that it is merely a time, place, or manner restriction on speech. Its purpose and effect are to silence entities whose voices the Government deems to be suspect. Speech is an essential mechanism of democracy, for it is the means to hold officials accountable to the people.

So contrary to the spin the left puts on this it is a direct attack on the first amendment. Vicki McKenna a conservative talk show host spoke of this this morning when she interviewed Eric O’Keefe this morning.

Most people don’t know who he is but he and many other people were subject to Gestapo type predawn raids on their homes because of their political activism during the Scott Walker recall. Those predawn raids were highlighted in John Stossel’s “Censured in America”

As I stated above we have seen the donor lists used to harass and intimidate. If there is corruption in government it is done by the officials themselves and not the public at large. No speech should be limited in order to give the illusion of fairness. More speech is better speech and one can always consider the source.

As might be expected by an industry with a long track record of willfully misinforming the public, perhaps it is not surprising that Radio Ink — which bills itself as “Radio’s Premier Management & Marketing Magazine” — would wildly mischaracterize not only the piece I wrote, but the legal underpinnings of the case which is helping to bring the question of what comprises “Bonafide News” to the forefront.

Of course there is no mischaracterization by Media Trackers Radio Ink or me. The FCC rule that she refers to only applies to qualified candidates and not to the followers of candidates. Again the FCC rules are narrow and quite specific.

(c) Timing of request. A request for equal opportunities must be submitted to the licensee within 1 week of the day on which the first prior use giving rise to the right of equal opportunities occurred: Provided, however, That where the person was not a candidate at the time of such first prior use, he or she shall submit his or her request within 1 week of the first subsequent use after he or she has become a legally qualified candidate for the office in question.

(d) Burden of proof. A candidate requesting equal opportunities of the licensee or complaining of noncompliance to the Commission shall have the burden of proving that he or she and his or her opponent are legally qualified candidates for the same public office.

Rather then arguments of actual law and the constitution Sue makes emotional arguments of “fairness” which is subjective depending on your point of view. Nowhere can Sue show that the above rules are extended to anyone other then the candidates or can she show that even the candidates are entitled to equal time to the talk show hosts. What makes Sue think that she or her followers are entitled to more time then the candidates themselves?

As Sue is aware of David Oxenford has written extensively on the subject. Her socialistic claims of ownership of the airwaves is yet another red herring, not even the FCC makes such a claim. Regulation is not ownership otherwise we would all be slaves to the state as we are all regulated and by Sue’s logic by extension owned.

The legal underpinnings of your case are non-existent, what is bona fide is moot as only qualified candidates qualify for equal time but even if your arguments were valid the FCC has ruled on what is bona fied on several occasions as David Oxenford discusses here.

So again Sue WTMJ station manager Steve Wexler’s letter is entirely accurate both factually and legally.

Thank you for your email. We frequently receive emails about our programming and the discussion of important political elections in particular. While some of our programming may include commentary and the personal opinions of program hosts, the station works diligently to ensure that a variety of views on important public issues are reflected in the totality of our news and talk programming.

We understand that not all listeners will agree with every opinion or statement made on the station. However, we are neither able, nor is it legally required, to provide each listener who disagrees with a statement made on the station the opportunity to appear on the station and express his or her opinion.

Unidentified Justice: But what if, say, the State of Alabama or the City of Birmingham, whatever the other, say we would like our station to editorialize?

Samuel A Alito Jr: Well, I think the Congress in regulating broadcasting can take into account the kinds of abuses that may develop when a publicly owned station using public funds, even state or local funds, engages in editorializing and supporting or opposing candidates.

I think that creates the possibility of grave abuses that are not present, certainly in the area of commercial broadcasting.

It creates the danger that the station will be used as an outlet for government propagandizing, and I think that one of the things the First Amendment tries to prevent is government at any level drowning out private voices in the media of communication.

Yes. Even though the Commerce Clause gives Congress the power to regulate the broadcast medium, “since broadcasters are engaged in a vital and independent form of communicative activity,” Congress must use the First Amendment to “inform and give shape” to its regulation. Justice Brennan argued that no legitimate government interest was served by the law which broadly banned all editorializing, a form of speech which “lies at the heart of First Amendment protection.”

As a result the FCC struck down the “fairness doctrine” in it’s entirety.

In 1985, under FCC Chairman Mark S. Fowler, a communications attorney who had served on Ronald Reagan’s presidential campaign staff in 1976 and 1980, the FCC released a report stating that the doctrine hurt the public interest and violated free speech rights guaranteed by the First Amendment.

The intrusion by government into the content of programming occasioned by the enforcement of [the Fairness Doctrine] restricts the journalistic freedom of broadcasters … [and] actually inhibits the presentation of controversial issues of public importance to the detriment of the public and the degradation of the editorial prerogative of broadcast journalists.

”

At the 4-0 vote, Chairman Patrick said,

“

We seek to extend to the electronic press the same First Amendment guarantees that the print media have enjoyed since our country’s inception.[14]

Update June 11, 2013

Given the left’s proclivity for censorship I’ve added the following which I posted on their site along with a screen shot.

Sue Wilson is renewing her attack on Conservative talk radio. Of course she again shows her ignorance of both Constitutional law and broadcast rules and regulations. She bases her arguments on the first amendment ignoring the fact that all of the “Bill of Rights” put limitations on the government and not private individuals or businesses.

The “Zapple doctrine” that she refers to was an offshoot of the “Fairness doctrine” that was found unconstitutional. It pertains to time purchased on the air and has no bearing on the editorial content of the talk shows. What she fails to mention that the FCC already informed her of that fact!

Again wrong Sue, the FCC is a regulatory agency that regulates all modern forms of electronic communications eg radio/TV, telephone and even the internet, is it your assertion that they own these too and can dictate content?

Can You show under what constitutional authority this ownership was taken or show documentation of this ownership?

Name any forms of governments that dictate the content of the media, are any of them not totalitarian?

Then she goes on to make the claim that the entire industry is racist/sexist without showing how any female or minority group has been denied the right to buy or own a radio station.

Broadcasting like any business is competitive and unless you have a customer base you can’t survive. The success of any radio station depends on the number of listeners. The arbitron shows the number of listeners and the success of radio. The market that she attacked is in the Milwaukee Area and the minority viewpoint was unsuccessfully represented.

Black talk radio is a vibrant force in town, particularly during local elections, but the city’s two black-owned radio stations have always been challenged by economic realities that made the going tough. (The other station is WNOV-AM 860, which still offers talk radio.)

The general manager at the company that runs WMCS chalked up a drastic decision to end the all-talk format on most days to strictly business. “Radio stations have to make money and serve the community,” said Bill Horwitz, vice president and general manager of the Milwaukee Radio Alliance.

The bottom line is that no one wants to listen to the pabulum spewed by leftist like Sue, The ratings of The Rachel Maddow show are a clear indication of this. Free Markets are the ultimate form of Democracy, you the listener get to decide what you listen to. The enemies of freedom would deny you of that right.

On conviction of a felony you do lose constitutional rights but only on conviction. Not for an arrest. You have to show probable cause to seize anything. Some people may say what’s the big deal if you have done nothing wrong. Would you let them search your house simply because you got caught speeding?

This goes far beyond searching your house, they are taking a piece of you. While they always make promises that it will only be used for criminal investigations history shows that the government never keeps those promises. Putting your DNA in a database will eventually be used for other purposes. Obamacare is a classic example, your DNA can be used to determine what diseases you may be prone to, you could be denied government jobs because of this, it could be used under Obamacare to determine how much money they will spend on healthcare based on what diseases you are prone to. Demand probable cause before forfeiting your rights.

My name is Marshall Keith and am an active Tea Party Member. Your recent action as members of the budget committee is appalling and betrays every principle this country was founded on, namely the right of property and the right to own and run a business. Your action take against RYO machines amount to a regulatory taking without just compensation.

I have a personal friend who is directly affected by this action, he mortgaged his house to buy two of these machines to the tune of $70,000 dollars. As a result of this he will more then likely lose both his home and his livelihood.

Do any of you think that sticking something like this in the budget even closely represents anything even closely related to Due Process? I remind you all that you swore an oath to defend and uphold both the State and Federal Constitution, are any of you aware of these words from both the Fifth or Fourteenth Amendments “nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation”. How about these words from the state constitution ”The property of no person shall be taken for public use without just compensation therefor”

The vast majority of you ran on the Republican platform of limited government and individual rights yet use the same tactics that Governor Doyle used to strip property owners the right to use their property and cater to the clientele of their choice and enact what is essentially a “Jim Crow” type law when enacting the smoking ban. He slipped it into the budget.

Is this what you mean by limited government and freedom, because to me it seems that we have just replaced one statist regime for another. I was active in the fight against the Recall against Scott Walker but recent actions, namely Walkers DNA proposal, his endorsement of the Marketplace Extortion Act make me regret that decision.

On conviction of a felony you do lose constitutional rights but only on conviction. Not for an arrest. You have to show probable cause to seize anything. Some people may say what’s the big deal if you have done nothing wrong. Would you let them search your house simply because you got caught speeding?

This goes far beyond searching your house, they are taking a piece of you. While they always make promises that it will only be used for criminal investigations history shows that the government never keeps those promises. Putting your DNA in a database will eventually be used for other purposes. Obamacare is a classic example, your DNA can be used to determine what diseases you may be prone to, you could be denied government jobs because of this, it could be used under Obamacare to determine how much money they will spend on healthcare based on what diseases you are prone to. Demand probable cause before forfeiting your rights.

When Scott Walker ran one of the promises that he made was to repeal the smoking ban. Not only did this ban violate the Constitution namely the takings clause of the fifth and 14th amendment. ” nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

Mr Walker not only reneged on that promise, it appears that he is expanding the attack on smokers using the exact same methods that Comrade Doyle used to enact the ban. The state budget. First here is Scott in his own words on the smoking ban.

The last is the funding of the very groups that lobby against smokers. They do it under the guise of Quit lines but these lines are the very groups that lobby against smokers so any funding to them is direct funding to their lobbying efforts since it frees up their other money. Page 220

MISSION
To support economic prosperity and quality of life, the department exercises multiple roles in the protection and promotion of the health and safety of the people of Wisconsin.PROGRAMS, GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND ACTIVITIES
Note: Programs, goals, objectives and activities have been modified.Program 1: Public Health Services Planning, Regulation and Delivery
Goal: Provide QuitLine tobacco cessation services for up to 8,000 BadgerCare Plus adults and First Breath face-to-face cessation counseling for up to 3,000 pregnant BadgerCare Plus members using financial incentives as a tool for increasing engagement in treatment and increasing quit rates.
Objective/Activity: Create structure and process to link BadgerCare Plus members in South Central and Northeastern Wisconsin to the QuitLine by January 2012.
Objective/Activity: Create structure and process to link BadgerCare Plus pregnant women in Southeastern Wisconsin to First Breath by January 2012.
Objective/Activity: Implement protocols for evaluation by March 2012. Evaluate effectiveness and return on investment of individual incentives on tobacco cessation by December 2015.